360 F. Supp. 3d 932
D. Ariz.2018Background
- Plaintiffs: ~10,000 trainee truck drivers who completed Swift’s three‑day orientation and multi‑week behind‑the‑wheel mentor program; they contend they were underpaid for orientation and certain training/idle times.
- Orientation: mandatory three‑day program; Swift paid trainees for days 2–3 but not day 1; some trainees say Swift promised pay for all three days; Swift says hiring occurred only after qualification at end of orientation.
- Behind‑the‑wheel training: trainees paired with paid mentors for 4–6 weeks, logged time via DOT electronic logs in statuses (Driving, On Duty Not Driving, Off Duty, Sleeper Berth); Swift paid driving and on‑duty rates but not for off‑duty or sleeper‑berth time.
- Plaintiffs’ workplace facts: trucks frequently in motion near DOT hour limits; trainees spent many hours in sleeper berth but were sometimes interrupted (calls, deliveries, repairs) and studied while in sleeper berth.
- Procedural posture: collective action certified; cross‑motions for summary judgment addressed (Swift moved re: orientation day 1; both moved re: sleeper‑berth and other compensation issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pay for first day of orientation | First day was Swift‑specific work/employee time; some trainees were promised pay and expected employment — so day 1 is compensable | Attendees were job applicants/not yet hired; day 1 was a non‑compensable qualification/training day akin to Portland Terminal | Genuine disputes of material fact exist; Swift’s motion denied as to day 1 (issue remains for later briefing) |
| Sleeper‑berth time > 8 hours per 24‑hour period | DOL rules limit unpaid bona fide sleeping to 8 hours (29 C.F.R. §785.22); time in excess must be paid | 29 C.F.R. §785.41 allows unpaid time when employee is permitted to sleep while riding; thus sleeper time need not be paid | Court harmonized the rules; DOL interpretation (opinion letters) controls → employer may deduct up to 8 unpaid sleeping hours; summary judgment for Plaintiffs on this point granted |
| Studying / performing work while logged in sleeper berth | Studying and other calls to duty performed during sleeper‑berth are compensable under 29 C.F.R. §785.27 and DOL guidance | Swift says studying was to satisfy condition of employment and is non‑compensable; also relied on DOT logs showing status chosen | Swift not entitled to summary judgment; contested facts/authority require further resolution (Plaintiffs may be entitled; further briefing allowed) |
| Short breaks (5–20 minutes) logged off‑duty | Plaintiffs seek pay for short breaks logged as off‑duty | Swift contends claim was not timely pleaded/disclosed so lacked notice and discovery opportunity | Claim inadequately disclosed earlier; Court declines to permit recovery for short breaks in this action |
Key Cases Cited
- Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947) (Supreme Court framework on unpaid trainees and when training may be noncompensable)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agency interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (deference to agency interpretations proportionate to persuasiveness)
- Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1981) (employer liability requires actual or constructive knowledge of uncompensated work)
- Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC, 905 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2018) (Auer deference discussion and standards for accepting agency interpretations)
- Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Assocs., Inc., 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979) (economic‑reality test and expansive FLSA interpretation)
- Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985) (economic reality defeats dispositive weight of parties' stated expectations regarding compensation)